If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

We have met the enemy and he is us - PogoThe reason I spend so much time out of the box is that somebody crapped in it -Porter Starr ByrdYield to temptation, it may never come again - unknownsome people have a hard time keeping up with the vanguard ... of course most of those are called survivors - PSB

Invading Your Privacy? Dems Do it Too!

It's an awful, awful bill and it opens a Pandora's Box that will never be closed again.

Revised bill highlights

Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.

Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.

Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

Among the 22 agencies that would have access to the e-mails of American citizens:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Office of Financial Research, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, andany other similar agency designated by statute as a Federal independent regulatory agency or commission.

Wow. What a gross overreach of government power. Sen. Leahy should be embarrassed.

And anyone concerned about this sort of intrusion and invasion of privacy should be spitting MAD.

Here's the names of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Is your Congresscritter on the list?

“One of the great tragedies of modern education is that most people are not taught to think critically. The majority of the world’s people, those of the West included, are taught to believe rather than to think. It’s much easier to believe than to think. People seldom think seriously about that which we are taught to believe, because we are all creatures of imitation and habit.”
― Haki R. Madhubuti

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

There was a very big, highly visible link to the follow up story at the beginning of the OP link, which is just as well as I had just pulled out the ol' stationery to write a letter of protest to my Senator, Dick Durbin.

There was a very big, highly visible link to the follow up story at the beginning of the OP link, which is just as well as I had just pulled out the ol' stationery to write a letter of protest to my Senator, Dick Durbin.

So, scary though this bill is, it is no longer being supported.

i had already read the story, so a link added after the fact wasn't something i would have noticed.

that said, one would think your post would have been an excerpt from the update adding new information -- rather than the veiled accusation that my lack of followup was unfairly painting leahy as something he isn't.

because he is exactly what he was when he bent over for the feds in the first place. he abandoned the legislation specifically because the public outcry.

so instead of being "surprised" that i didn't rush back to vindicate pat leahy, you should be thanking me for the OP which, in some part, contributed to the public shaming that brought that weasel-faced fucker back into line with some semblance of decent leadership.

i had already read the story, so a link added after the fact wasn't something i would have noticed.

that said, one would think your post would have been an excerpt from the update adding new information -- rather than the veiled accusation that my lack of followup was unfairly painting leahy as something he isn't.

because he is exactly what he was when he bent over for the feds in the first place. he abandoned the legislation specifically because the public outcry.

so instead of being "surprised" that i didn't rush back to vindicate pat leahy, you should be thanking me for the OP which, in some part, contributed to the public shaming that brought that weasel-faced fucker back into line with some semblance of decent leadership.

Ah. My error.

I had assumed you started this thread in order to discuss an atrocious proposed bill, not to vilify the author of it. Indeed, the thread title and the information as presented seemed to support this interpretation.

Mind you, nothing in my post expressed any support whatsoever of Patrick Leahy. Nor would I do so. The bill is as craven a piece of dangerous power grabbing as I have seen. Mr. Leahy's judgement and character are clear, but I assumed that dwelling on that would be a distraction from the far more important matter of the bill itself.

Given that I thought the bill, not Mr. Leahy's character, was the topic of this thread, I assumed that my information that support for the bill had been withdrawn would save a lot of people from anxiety. I might have considered quoting from the article, but it seemed unnecessary given that a link was included and in light of the simple news that the bill was effectively dead.

I see nothing in my previous post in support of Patrick Leahy, nor any requirement that you defend his character.

Withdrawing support is nice for Mr. Leahy, in terms of trying to save face. Pulling the bill so it doesn't come up for a vote would actually do something, though. I'm thinking another note to Out senators wouldn't be amiss.

Senator Durbin's life on the net pretty much began with misadventure and amateur efforts. When content filtering went into effect in public schools and some public offices across the state, his office's site was one of the first ones blocked. I wish I could have been the one to point out why. "Sir, your first name is Dick."

Last edited by Williebee; 11-23-2012 at 04:50 AM.

This morning the sun came up.
Just like yesterday, and tomorrow.
Face the day, not the darkness.